Template talk:2015–16 Ukrainian Premier League table

Template:2015–16 Ukrainian Premier League table

Your recent revert for the template is inconsistent and makes no sense. The outcome of the cup competition is irrelevant as the third-best team (in case if the third would be Dnipro) that is eligible for continental competition would still qualify for the group stage. And inconsistent is due to the fact that both Dynamo and Shakhtar also qualified for the third qualification round of the Champions League, yet they are marked as uncertain. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: There are some differences between the cases and believe me, I follow all European leagues and know how the tables are updated. Zorya Luhansk are qualified for third qualifying round as they have that secured that in the league. They can however also qualify for a later round with a good result in an other competition (the cup), but they have still qualified for third qualifying round. It is the same for Manchester City in 2015–16 Premier League who has won the League Cup and are listed as Qualified for Europa League third qualifying round (see 2016–17 UEFA Europa League), even though they may qualify for Champions League in an other competition (the league). Dynamo Kyiv and Shaktar Donetsk have not yet qualified for anything as they have not reached a certain spot in any competition (cup or league). Qed237 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, thank you for your prompt response. Would you mind if we will move this discussion to the template talk page as I should have done in the first place? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: No problem, but I am not able to respond until tomorrow. Qed237 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, that is fine. Please note that both Dynamo and Shakhtar have both qualified for the Champions League since April 17.... Also, annotating that Manchester City qualified for Europa League does not make sense when they obviously could still qualify for the Champions League. Why would we state something which could be questioned? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, I really don't see the problem with my previous edit which stated that Zorya Luhansk qualified, but yet may qualify for the group stage of the tournament. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: Well as I said above, they have actually qualified for that stage. Things may change if they qualify through an other competition but they have qualified. It is a "current table" per earlier discussions and currently Zorya Luhansk are qualified for Third qualifying round, while Dynamo and Shakhtar could finish both 1st and 2nd and could qualify for different stages. I will invite WP:FOOTY to this discussion to get more input and I hope that is okay. Qed237 (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If Zorya Luhansk have, as I understand it, qualified for the Europa League but it is not yet confirmed that they will definitely be in the 3rd qualifying round as they may qualify for the group stage via the cup, then surely (T) is most appropriate? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Based on the league (this is league table) they have qualified for third qualifying round. Then, based on what happen in an other competition (cup), they may qualify there for an other round, thus taking that places instead. Qed237 (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

But that doesn't seem consistent to me with displaying in league tables the clubs that have qualified for Europe via national cup competitions? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: That is how it has been done for years due to the qualification system. If a team wins the cup but qualifies through the league, their spot is given to a team in the league. It would be weird to show a qualification for teams 1, 2 and 3 (team 4 is empty because they qualified though cup) and then have team 5 as qualified (they got the spot that was originally supposed to be for fourth-placed team). But we have always used notes to explain the situation. See for example Template:2014–15 Premier League table where Arsenal and West Ham one the domestic cups. Qed237 (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree that clubs qualified via the cup should be displayed; the point I'm making is that if we do that, we are allowing the results from other competitions to be displayed in the Euro-qualifying part of the league table - therefore, why not allow that in relation to the fact that while ZL are qualified for the Europa League, they may yet qualify for another higher stage? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: Consistency with 2016–17 UEFA Europa League? Or the fact that they have actually qualified? Qualified is not the same thing as they with a 100% security play that round as UEFA modifies accesslist every year to account for special events. Qed237 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I dont mind a small note saying that their round might change, but if we are supposed to change the entire system now this will have an impact on all other leagues as well and needs discussion at football project. Qed237 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Yes - I suppose as a reader I'd always presumed that the (T)/(Q) took potential changes due to eg Europa League winner 'double qualifying' for Champions League into account; if it doesn't, I suggest that we're being misleading. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

An no to more footnotes. There are too many already on Wikipedia league tables. We have a perfectly cromulent (T) to indicate that a team has qualified for a competition, but not necessarily to the round indicated. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: It is to hard for any editor to account for all those scenarios when updating the table. But seeing that a team can only reach third or fourth place and that those mean a certain round so put a (Q) is a lot easier. Otherwise the editor updating the table must always look at a lot of other articles as well, and we can not demand that from editors. Qed237 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Then maybe we shouldn't mislead readers by having the rounds to the right of the table? What's wrong with 'Europa League qualification', which most reliable sources would use? Our templates shouldn't be making claims that our editing can't support. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

But they have still qualified for the round indicated, and we list current table and they are currently qualified for third qualifying round (until cup is decided). Qed237 (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, I think you chose not to pay attention to what I said before. There could be situation that the cup finals will host teams that will not take part in the Europa League. Nonetheless, ZL could still qualify for another stage of the tournament regardless of the other competition's outcome. I do not understand why we even talking about that other competition. ZL qualified for the tournament Europa League, therefore it is indicated with the letter T; it is however uncertain for which stage as the club have a chance to qualify one of the two stages allotted for Ukraine in the next season. The same way with Dynamo and Shakhtar as they both in your point of view already qualified for the third qual. round of the Champions League; yet you don't go arguing that Shakhtar has already qualified for the round indicated. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, yes, that is fine to invite other participants. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Position 3 and 4 (originally is third qualifying round) which is the only round someone can qualify to from the league. Now ZL has qualified for the EL spots in the league which is third qualifying round so they are qualified. Then they can qualify for group stage based on cup and hand their league spot over to an other team, but that does not change the fact that they qualified for third qualifying round. If you read what I wrote earlier Dynamo and Shakhtar has not qualified for any stage in a competition while ZL has (they have secured a round in the league). Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: Lets do what you say and ignore the other competition. Then first and second place is for different stages of the Champions League. The following two places is for third qualifying round of Europa League. Now ZL can not reach one of the two places in Champions League but they have qualified for Europa League (and the only stage from league, so they are Q). Dynamo and Shaktar however are not Q because they dont know who is first or second and have not decided what team will play in what round. Qed237 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, I never argued that ZL have a chance to qualify for the Champions League. I brought Dynamo and Shakhtar case as an analogy. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, in your last comment you said: "Dynamo and Shaktar however are not Q because they dont know who is first or second and have not decided what team will play in what round". What I am saying is that there is no guarantee that ZL will play in the third q. round of Europa League. Your argument completely defeats the purpose of (T) legend. That is all I am saying. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, I agree that the whole thing is confusing especially how the table looks like at this time. Ukraine has two slots allotted for the 3rd q. round and one slot for the group stage. The table should indicate that, but it does not. Ukraine does not have all three slots in the 3rd q. round. Am I wrong? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, in my opinion unless won a national cup competition, the top place in the league out of all clubs that allowed to take part in the European competition and have not qualified for the Champions League should be assigned the upper stage of the Europa League competition. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We can not have that in the top place in the league, when someone below that might qualify. As I said, if you want to listen this time, ZL has qualified for Europa League based on League position. The only Europa League stage you can enter from the league (ignoring the cup) is third qualifying round, thus they have qualified for that round. Yes, things may change if they qualify through an other competition, but that does not change the fact that they have qualified. Qed237 (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, the teams 3-5 will qualify for EL, but we dont know what team will go to group stage so we can not display that. But the note is very good saying "The winners of the cup will qualify for Europa League group stage and if the league champions or runners-up win the cup, the spot in group stage will be given to the third-placed team."Qed237 (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Except it doesn't say that, does it? If it did, it would be more helpful. It says

" Since all teams qualified for 2015–16 Ukrainian Cup semi-finals (Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk, FC Oleksandriya, Shakhtar Donetsk and Zorya Luhansk) are currently in top six in the league, the sixth-placed team currently qualifies for at least Europa League third qualifying round. This because if one of the top five teams (not counting Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk, excluded from European competitions) would win the cup, their spot in third qualifying round would be given to the sixth-placed team. The winners of the cup will qualify for Europa League group stage and if the league champions or runners-up win the cup, the spot in group stage will be given to the third-placed team."

It's pedantic, windy and practically useless. Look I'm not going to demand any changes - keep doing what you're doing - I'm just letting you know that from my perspective these edits look unreadably pedantic in some places, and misleadingly inaccurate in others. It's up to you if you want to ignore those comments. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: You dont think we have to explain why sixth-place is currently in blue as the blue will be removed if Stal Dniprodzerzhynsk will pass FC Oleksandriya in the table. Qed237 (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, surely 6th place shouldn't become blue until the cup winners are definitely going to finish in a league European place? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers: That is definately a case that could be discussed. When I took it to WT:FOOTY the response was "it is only a current table so it doesn't hurt" if I can remember correctly. Qed237 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't color 6th place blue for now. -06:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Koppapa: And the same for all other tables as well, like Template:2015–16 Premier League table? Should we only color when we are sure that position will qualify? Should this be discussed again at WT:FOOTY? Qed237 (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

My view would be 'yes' to this: Man City aren't yet guaranteed a top 5 finish and therefore 6th place is not yet a confirmed Europa League spot, but do raise it at WP:FOOTY --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers, Aleksandr Grigoryev, and Koppapa: Now the qualification column at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Qualification. The Q or T is the next step. Easier to discuss there as editors sometimes dont join these template talk discussions. Qed237 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Relegation

Qed237 as I told The Replicator, the Wikipedia states the following for relegation: "In sports leagues, promotion and relegation is a process where teams are transferred between two divisions based on their performance for the completed season." You are right about that Volyn does continue to play, but it is not going to be relegated technically. Their further fate is to be determined, but they will not compete on professional level. As of right now there are speculations that the team will be dissolved. Now about Metalurh, it was withdrawn from competitions since the winter break and officially excluded after it. The original team was formally dissolved, not relegated. Marking it as relegated draws a question where to. In the previous seasons all relegations were identified, if teams were truly relegated. If the teams were withdrawn or folded they were not identified as relegated. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, I do acknowledge that the above clubs practically are relegated, however it poses ambiguity. So, I insist to have claim for relegation removed in comments section and changed to what really took place. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev Fine, remove it in the comments, but you can not set Volyn as "Withdrawn" in the qualification column. Qed237 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, OK, I agree that was not good. How about for Volyn we will set status "TBD" (to be determined), while Metalurh will identified as "Eliminated". In the notes we could add that Volyn did not apply for professional competitions next season. It still uncertain whether Volyn will play at all or will withdraw. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)